HTTP 500 internal-error

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It openly states that page content is not stored, which is a meaningful disclosure, and it clearly limits the return to host, scheme, and HTTP status. However, it leaves out important behaviors such as whether the URL is fetched over the network, redirect handling, timeouts, or any potential side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the 'not stored' caveat is a useful, relevant follow-up. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite complete schema coverage, the tool remains under-specified for an agent. The optional parameters json and zone appear unrelated to the stated purpose of returning URL metadata, and no output schema is provided. An agent would be unsure whether to supply these parameters or what the exact response shape is.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by naming host, scheme, and HTTP status as the operation's output, but it does not clarify how the host, json, and zone parameters fit into the citation process. It neither contradicts nor significantly enhances the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific operation: return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. The phrase 'Page content is not stored' further separates this from tools that fetch or store content. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the core purpose is clear and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not reference sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json, nor does it state conditions like 'use this to cite a URL, not to validate JSON.' The 'not stored' line hints at scope but does not provide actionable usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds one non-obvious behavioral fact beyond the schema: 'No identifiers are retained.' This discloses a privacy/retention behavior, which is genuinely useful. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it does not mention whether validation is synchronous, what side effects exist (none implied), or what the output/classification format is.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the non-retention guarantee is concise. No wasted words or redundant restatement of the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 4 optional params, no required inputs, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior but remains thin: it doesn't state what kinds of classifications are returned, how results relate to input combinations, or what happens with invalid inputs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters adequately. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'request' and 'classification,' but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear action ("Show how this request is classified") with a specific resource concept (request classification). It is somewhat abstract and doesn't strongly differentiate from siblings like 'citation' or 'domain-shape', but it does say what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage — call it to see classification of a request — but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives, and does not mention that all 4 parameters are optional. There is no stated exclusion or alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states an exclusion — no WHOIS/ownership data — and does not disclose what happens to inputs like url, json, or zone, whether the operation has side effects, or what the split output looks like. The schema hints that json is discarded, but the description adds no behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with zero filler. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, and the exclusion clause is efficient. Every word contributes meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool exposes four diverse optional parameters but the description explains only the hostname-splitting behavior, leaving url, json, and zone unexplained in terms of how they relate to the tool's purpose. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent lacks key information about return values and how the parameters interact.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, warranting the baseline 3. The description adds implicit meaning for 'host' via 'hostname' but does nothing to clarify why url, json, and zone are accepted by a tool described solely as a hostname splitter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('split') and resource ('hostname into labels'), making the core action clear. The 'without WHOIS or ownership data' clause draws a scope boundary that helps distinguish it from enrichment or lookup tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus any alternative. There is no mention of when the tool is appropriate, what inputs it expects in practice, or what to use instead when WHOIS/ownership data is needed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, but it only states a meaning and gives no verb, no output behavior, no side effects, and no indication of how parameters affect the result. The agent cannot tell whether this is a read-only lookup or something more complex.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and free of filler, but it is under-specified for a tool with four optional parameters and no title. It is a fragment rather than a structured sentence, so the brevity reads as incompleteness rather than efficient front-loading.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and four optional unrelated parameters, a complete description would need to state the return behavior and the role of each parameter. The five-word phrase leaves important context missing, so an agent cannot confidently decide what payload to send.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, so the coverage baseline is 3. However, the description adds no parameter semantics and never explains how url, host, json, or zone relate to the meaning of HTTP 500.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies HTTP 500 as the subject and implies the tool provides its meaning, but it is a noun phrase rather than a statement of an operation. It also does nothing to differentiate this tool from the sibling status-catalog.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as status-catalog, or whether it is meant for a broader status-code lookup. With no prerequisites or context, the agent must guess the intended use case.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool returns a list, validates a zone, or performs any action, nor does it mention side effects, response shape, or access requirements. For a tool with no annotation safety net, this is a critical transparency gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and contains no filler words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It is a fragment that omits a verb and fails to explain the tool's behavior or relationship to its parameters. A single vague sentence is not a well-structured description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the parameters interact, or why url/host/json appear alongside zone. An agent would have almost no basis to invoke this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 because the schema already documents each parameter individually. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and notably the url, host, and json parameters seem unrelated to the tool's stated purpose. Still, the schema itself carries the explanatory weight.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description, 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls,' is a noun phrase rather than a statement of a specific action, so it does not clearly define what the tool does. It essentially restates the tool name with minimal context and does not differentiate it from the sibling 'citation' tool. It also leaves unexplained how the url, host, and json parameters relate to IANA timezone names.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'for clock calls' provides a faint usage context but no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, no prerequisites, and no comparison to sibling tools. The guidance is implied at best.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that only group counts are returned and that the target must be public, but it says nothing about error behavior, rate limits, network dependence, or what role the four parameters play. The 'group counts only' detail is useful but far from sufficient for a network-fetching tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word carries meaning: the action, the target, the scope constraint ('public'), and the restricted output ('group counts only').

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description never explains how the parameters relate to fetching robots.txt. Critical information is missing: what is a 'group', which parameter is required, what the return format looks like, and what happens to the json/zone inputs. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, which normally earns a baseline of 3, but the schema descriptions are vague and disconnected from the tool's purpose (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', 'IANA timezone name'). The description itself adds no explanation of which parameters trigger the fetch or what json/zone have to do with robots.txt, so an agent cannot reliably construct a correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('a public robots.txt'), and a precise return scope ('group counts only'). However, there are no sibling tool names provided to differentiate against, so it doesn't reach the level of explicit sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. An agent learning whether to prefer this over a full-content-fetch tool or a search tool gets no guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention returning components and dropping query/fragment, which is useful. However, it omits details about invalid URL handling, edge cases, or side effects (e.g., does it modify anything?). The disclosure is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is exceptionally concise: two short sentences that lead with the main behavior and then add a key detail about what is dropped. There is no fluff or repetitive content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has four diverse parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only covers the URL-related functionality. It does not explain the relationship between 'url' and the other three parameters, nor whether they are alternatives or complementary. This leaves an agent without enough context to confidently invoke the tool for the non-URL parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for the 'url' parameter by clarifying that query and fragment are stripped. However, it does not address the 'host', 'json', or 'zone' parameters, creating ambiguity about how they should be used with the tool. Still, the schema already documents each parameter individually.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool's function: returning origin, host, and path for a URL and dropping query/fragment. This is a specific verb+resource that conveys the core purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the intent is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. The description implies it is for URL normalization, but there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships to other tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool is a catalog and says nothing about read-only behavior, side effects, output format, or how the given parameters relate to the catalog.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than efficient writing. It fails to include any actionable or contextual information that would justify its place in a tool definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line noun phrase is far too incomplete. The agent cannot determine what input it should pass, what it will receive back, or why the sibling tools exist.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. However, the description adds no semantic connection between these parameters (url, host, json, zone) and the stated purpose of HTTP status codes, leaving the agent to guess how they are used.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource (HTTP status codes), but is a noun phrase ('Short catalog...') with no actionable verb. It does not say whether an agent should look up, list, or interpret status codes, and the schema params (url, host, json, zone) suggest additional functionality that the description never acknowledges.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is zero guidance about when to use status-catalog versus its siblings (citation, compatibility, validate, etc.). No context, prerequisites, or excluded use cases are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the core read-only behavior (current time lookup) but says nothing about output format, error behavior, or the fact that three of the four schema parameters appear unrelated to timezone lookups.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is as short as possible, though the brevity contributes to the missing parameter disambiguation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with four parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description leaves too much to guesswork: which parameter to pass, what the response looks like, and why unrelated parameters exist.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema descriptions provide 100% coverage, yet three of them describe URL/host/JSON operations that have nothing to do with time. Only 'zone' aligns with the description; the description adds zero disambiguation about which parameter to supply.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific operation — returning current time — for a specific resource, a named IANA timezone. It is distinguishable from the sibling tools by operation alone, though it never names any alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the one-line description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only says 'Current UTC timestamp.' It does not state whether the four optional parameters affect the result, what output format is returned, or that the operation is a safe read with no side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, front-loaded, and contains no filler, making it easy to parse. However, it is under-specified rather than well-structured; a single noun phrase cannot carry the needed behavioral and parameter context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the return format and how parameters are handled. It does neither, and the presence of four optional but seemingly unrelated parameters makes the call ambiguous.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-level meaning. However, the schema parameters (url, host, json, zone) seem generic and unrelated to UTC time, and the description does not clarify whether they are ignored, limiting real usefulness.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's core purpose: returning the current UTC timestamp. It lacks a verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'timezone' tool, nor does it specify the timestamp format.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of siblings like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones'. The agent gets no context about appropriate use cases, exclusions, or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the body is 'discarded,' which is a meaningful non-retention trait. However, it doesn't state the return type (boolean) or error behavior, so the disclosure is partial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core behavior is front-loaded and the discard notification follows naturally. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple validation tool, the description is adequate, but it leaves two gaps: it doesn't clarify that only the 'json' parameter is relevant (the other three optional fields are distractors), and it doesn't specify the result shape. That's acceptable for a minimal check but not rich enough to be called complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is met. The description adds nothing about how 'url', 'host', or 'zone' relate to validation; it only refers generically to 'body,' leaving the json parameter's role to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'check whether a body is valid JSON.' This maps directly to the tool name and differentiates it from the URL/timezone siblings, since it is explicitly about JSON syntax validation rather than normalization or citation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is offered about when to call this tool versus an alternative—for example, a schema validator or a JSON parsing tool. The description states what it does but not when it is the right choice or when it would be inappropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.